Archives

Authority Prevents Learning

Posted:

We generally learn through study, through books, through experience, or through being instructed. Those are the usual ways of learning. We commit to memory what to do and what not to do, what to think and what not to think, how to feel, how to react. Through experience, through study, through analysis, through probing, through introspective examination, we store up knowledge as memory; and memory then responds to further challenges and demands, from which there is more and more learning. What is learned is committed to memory as knowledge, and that knowledge functions whenever there is a challenge, or whenever we have to do something.Now I think there is a totally different way of learning, and I am going to talk a little bit about it; but to understand it, and to learn in this different way, you must be completely rid of authority; otherwise, you will merely be instructed, and you will repeat what you have heard. That is why it is very important to understand the nature of authority. Authority prevents learning -learning that is not the accumulation of knowledge as memory. Memory always responds in patterns; there is no freedom. A man who is burdened with knowledge, with instructions, who is weighted down by the things he has learned, is never free. He may be most extraordinarily erudite, but his accumulation of knowledge prevents him from being free, and therefore he is incapable of learning. – J. Krishnamurti, The Book of Life

Learning Has No Past

Posted:

Wisdom is something that has to be discovered by each one, and it is not the result of knowledge. Knowledge and wisdom do not go together. Wisdom comes when there is the maturity of self-knowing. Without knowing oneself, order is not possible, and therefore there is no virtue.Now, learning about oneself, and accumulating knowledge about oneself, are two different things. A mind that is acquiring knowledge is never learning. What it is doing is this: It is gathering to itself information, experience as knowledge, and from the background of what it has gathered, it experiences, it learns; and therefore it is never really learning, but always knowing, acquiring.Learning is always in the active present; it has no past. The moment you say to yourself, “I have learned,” it has already become knowledge, and from the background of that knowledge you can accumulate, translate, but you cannot further learn. It is only a mind that is not acquiring, but always learning, it is only such a mind that can understand this whole entity that we call the “me,” the self. I have to know myself, the structure, the nature, the significance of the total entity; but I can’t do that burdened with my previous knowledge, with my previous experience, or with a mind that is conditioned, for then I am not learning, I am merely interpreting, translating, looking with an eye that is already clouded by the past. – J. Krishnamurti, The Book of Life

Throughout our program issues of context have been prominently presented and discussed. I realize that also plays a role in research. With regard to the two main research strategies, quantitative and qualitative, my current understanding of context is as follows. Researchers in both approaches claim giving context their full attention, however, in two very distinct and almost antithetic ways. In quantitative research the context is the “here and now” reality of the relevant research environment, where variables are measured according to an objectivist ontological perspective that views phenomena as external events “beyond our reach of influence.” (Bryman, p. 18) In qualitative research, instead, context seems to include a variety of factors that, according to constructivism, definitely influence the observed phenomena. This simplified distinction makes me think that whenever we talk about context, we may be referring to two very different concepts that would be better understood by using different words.

Clearly, the contextual scope in qualitative research is much broader than the selected, controlled environment in a quantitative design. In my view, it is exactly the context of a certain phenomenon that qualitative researchers are after. Therefore, the context (and related processes) of a given case scenario is not only the framework within which researchers develop their strategy for data collection and analysis; it is also the object of their investigation. Given the relevance of context in both research strategies, I find it strange that Bryman’s book does not include any relevant entry in either the glossary or the index.

An example of the importance of context in qualitative research is Grounded Theory (see Bryman, pag 541). Although I have not completed the readings, I believe that this particular kind of approach includes a broad context for the study of all interacting factors, actors and even observers. When considering these issues, I remembered our discussion in a previous course. Back then we were examining different approaches to experiential learning and the roles of observation and participation. Fenwick (2001) provided the following definition of context, which I find very relevant to my comments in this post. I believe that Fenwick’s definition helps understand how learning is influenced by our environment, but also how a qualitative education research needs to be mindful of a very broad and inclusive context:

Context involves the social relations and political-cultural dimensions of the community in which the individual is caught up, the nature of the task, the web of joint actions in which the individual’s choices and behaviors are enmeshed, the vocabulary and cultural beliefs through which the individual makes meaning of the whole situation, and the historical, temporal, and spatial location of the situation. (Fenwick, 2001, p. 20)

Going back to my previous mention of Grounded Theory, it seems to me that context defines the background against which identities play out, but it can also become indistinguishable from the actors. In a process of ongoing negotiation and reframing, context is simply a reality that is constantly transforming itself. Grounded Theory researchers persistently re-evaluate their findings, which reminds me a lot of the enactivist/ecological perspective as discussed in Fenwick (2001):

The enactivist perspective insists that learning cannot be understood except in terms of co-emergence: each participant’s understandings are entwined with those of other participants, and individual knowledge co-emerges with collective knowledge. Educational theory also must examine the subtle particularities of “context” created through the learning of complex systems, embedded in their constantly shifting interactional dynamics, and the relations among these particularities. Educators need to become alert to a “complexified awareness…of how one [individual] exists simultaneously in and across these levels, and of how part and whole co-emerge and co-specify one another. (Davis and Sumara 1997, p. 120)

When it comes to education research, it seems to me that we – in our multiple roles of educators, researchers, and learners – would move between different degrees of participation and observation to gain a deeper understanding of the context, whether that be for our research or for our engagement in our professional practices.

Would it be correct to say that Grounded Theory follows an enactivist/ecological approach to the understanding of context e to the emergence of theory?

Instead of answering each question, I have written a comprehensive post that will touch on the issues raised in the questions.

Definition of popular education

Nadeau defines popular education “as a method of group education and organizing that starts with the problems in people’s daily lives.” (p. 3) This idea parallels concepts outlined by Walters and Manicom (1996). One key element in their model is experience. “Women’s experience is seen as the point of departure for feminist popular education.” (p.10) Pre-existing experiences closely interact with processes of experience building. (p.12) Experience is also seen as an overarching element in feminist popular education and one cannot detach the private, personal experience from its political and social dimension. They introduced the concept of Cotidiano, meaning the daily occupations in every woman’s life, which can be as intrinsically political, and as integrated with broader social relations and hierarchies of oppression.” (p.10)

Role of society and political stance
Nadeau also emphasizes that “Feminist popular educators quickly recognized that women, youth, the urban poor and indigenous people were playing central roles in building popular resistance and in creating alternatives located not in political parties but in the social movements.” (p.3) The potentials of her idea of feminist popular education is therefore rooted in popular resistance movement, and in women’s movements in particular.

Emphasis on the connection of body, mind and spirit

In her article, she often refers to such connection as being the means through which liberation from oppression can be achieved. Particularly, this approach seems to offer itself as an alternative to male-dominated discourses. However, her argument transcends the opportunity for an attitudinal transformation and embraces a polarized crusade, as explained next.

A mixture of apparently unrelated approaches

Parts of Nadeau’s article reads to me like a Greek salad of several “techniques” for which she does not clearly define how they relate to one another. I hope I do not sound too disrespectuf when saying that her narrative betrays the kind of enthusiasm that many Westerners show when coming in contact with non-western customs and traditions. Some people have called that “going native.”

She offers a blend of guided imaging, bioenergetics, Augusto Boal’s “theatre of the oppressed”, and several forms of body work as a way for women to promote the mind-body-spirit connection that is necessary for the development of awareness with regard of their oppression and relevant course of action. Unfortunately, she presents these “techniques” acritically, as if they could provide some kind of miraculous panacea to the many problems faced by women.

With regards to bioenergetics, for example, I would like to make a comment, having done individual bioenergetic therapy myself for three years. The tenets of such therapy is indeed on “letting go” of emotional blocks that have become engrained in muscular tension. However, recent studies are critical of the actual benefits that may derive to someone who – through this kind of therapy – forcibly takes out her/his anger with the therapist’s assistance. A discussion on bioenergetics would certainly require more time and knowledge than I have. I just want to point out that the way Nadeau describes it is very superficial and denies possible complications. (Many years ago, in Amsterdam, I joined a group for a week-end of bioenergetics. The experience was very distressful, as I found myself dealing with a level of intolerable anger that was thrown around at whoever was there to take it. There was nothing liberating in that experience. It was traumatic, to say the least).

She also talks about Augusto Boal’s “theatre of the oppressed.” In 2005, as part of a Master’s on Peace Studies, I spent two days with Boa. Even though the experience was interesting, I could not say that I was hooked on it. Honestly, I barely remember what it was all about. To me, that was another case of lack of contextualization, a theme we discussed in the thread on Freire.

Walters and Manicom (1996, p.13) mentioned the connection between feminist popular education and psychotherapy. I certainly understand how – to many women – their experiences can be very traumatic, and believe that a therapeutic approach to that is appropriate. I am not sure – however – that the same approach should be employed in “education/learning” for the society at large.

Criticism towards other views of popular education; assumption on ACTION; essentialist perspective

Nadeau believes that “traditional popular education had failed to address the reality of women’s domestic and community lives: the invisible ‘private’ sphere and the specific problems and possibilities of women as worker both inside and outside the home (Fernandez et al., 1991).” (p.4) That seems to be enough justification for her to affirm the better position of her approach. To that end, she suggests Gender and Development (GAD) theory as the good approach towards the analysis of issues of oppressions:

“GAD analysis has shown how the intersection of multiple oppressions – race, class and gender as well as colonial history – has shaped women’s economic subordination. It also uncovers how the exploitation of women’s unwaged domestic and community work is built into the dynamic of global restructuring.” (p.4) Such approach, sustained by emerging conscientization, should lead to action towards change. But apparently increased awareness does not necessarily convert into action. (p.4) This sounds like a contested statement. In fact, it neglects to consider the assumption that action is indeed the desired outcome. I am thinking of the Taoist concept of wu-wei, which refers to

“behavior that arises from a sense of oneself as connected to others and to one’s environment. It is action that is spontaneous and effortless. At the same time it is not to be considered inertia, laziness, or mere passivity. Rather, it is the experience of going with the grain or swimming with the current. Our contemporary expression, “going with the flow,” is a direct expression of this fundamental Taoist principle, which in its most basic form refers to behavior occurring in response to the flow of the Tao. We heed the intelligence of our whole body, not only our brain. And we learn through our own experience. All of this allows us to respond readily to the needs of the environment, which of course includes ourselves. And just as the Tao functions in a manner to promote harmony and balance, our own actions, performed in the spirit of wu-wei, produce the same result.”

Interestingly, the principles stated above seem to be consistent with Nadeau’s view on the body-spirit-mind connection. They differ – however – in their lack of forceful advocacy for action. From my perspective, enforced action follows the path of a mainstream Western approach to problem solving. I personally disagree with this approach, as I favour instead processes of societal and personal transformation that are not entrenched in dichotomous discourses. These thoughts lead me to what I perceive as Nadeau’s Essentialist view.

In my opinion, the following quote from her article clearly express the limitation of her approach, by positioning it firmly inside a specific camp.

“Women are involved daily in maintenance and care of the body: in nurturing their families, transmitting culture, providing health-care, preparing food and generally sustaining body and soul in family and community. Much of women’s work whether reproductive work, productive work, or community work, revolves around the body and its needs. The political economy of women’s bodies revolves around women’s work as consumers, sex partners, sex trade workers, and as reproducers of workers in their roles as mothers, teachers, nurses, day-care workers and so on. This labour is so critical that church and state try to manage women’s bodies – their reproductive capacities and freedoms and their sexualities. Men as individuals and groups try to discipline women through rape, beatings, disappearances and murder, that is, through the body. In many ways the body is the key site of struggle for women.” (pp. 4-5)

The language in this paragraph presents a string of gender-specific roles that strongly remind me of essentialist views. She talks about “women” and “men” as if she was referring to all women and all men. Having spent many years of my life trying to overcome similar schemata, I find a discussion premised on such stereotypes not very productive. I believe in the power of learning and education as tools and contexts for transformation, and not as means towards a self-perpetuating “alternative”. (An alternative implies replacing something with something else; transformation implies transmuting something into something new).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>FORUM DISCUSSION

Ginger wrote:

Hi Marie,

Thanks so much for your break down of Nadeau’s views. It was so helpful to push my thinking. I wonder if the gender based duality is more ‘masculine/feminine’ than ‘men/women’, recognizing, as you say, that both men and women can be located in our bodies, but masculine socialization has disembodied lots of men as well as women. Accentuating a more feminine approach, with respect for emotions, non-verbal communication, personal experience, then can help both women and men to embrace more holistic learning, combining emotions and feelings with rational thinking and analysis.

Anita wrote:

A resounding “Bravo!”, Oscar. I agree. I have been a little perplexed throughout these reading that authors do not seem to feel the need to define what they mean by action, or the range of actions that they might consider successful results of their popular education efforts. Conscientization, to use Freire’s word, results in changes to one’s identity, and therefore to how one lives one’s day-to-day life, which is a powerful action individually, and unstoppable if there is a critical mass.

Anita

I agree with Oscar that this paragraph from Nadeau essentialized both women and men. I am not denying that some men, acting as individuals or as a group, control women through violence. But as the paragraph begins with what is clearly intended to be a generalization about women, the statement about men is either also intended as a generalization about men (which seems unreasonable), or is an example of very careless writing. In either event, the over-generalizations lead to both the essentializing and polarizing of experience. This, and treating ‘church’ and ‘state’ as monolithic, has the effect of erecting boundaries to thinking that are limiting and therefore unhelpful if the goal is social change.

Anita

Anita,

Thank you for reviewing my post and for all your comments above. You eloquently reinforced many of the points I was trying to make.

Like Ginger, I also believe that the issue is not to try to draw a line between men and women, but it is to try to understand the nuances that abound between the masculine and feminine. It’s more about attitudinal perspectives than gender-ascribed roles.

The concept of Yin and Yang comes to mind as a useful metaphor for what I tried to express in my post. Academically speaking, instead, I think of the definitions ascribed vs. avowed identities, which I discussed in another course. (see this link to view my reflections on this)

The terms highlight issues of essentialist definitions of identity, which I believe relates to Nadeau’s discussion on “women vs. men.” Needless to say that, like Anita and others, I do not share such entrenched views, which remind me of a movie called Classified People about racial profiling in Apartheid-era South Africa.

In recent posts I noticed a growing discomfort related to possible future scenarios that would break through currently employed discourse. I would like to share some information I gathered over the past few days, as the result of a search that was no doubt prompted by some comments in the forums.

I believe one of the issues that emerged from the discussion is the search for something that would allow us to take a leap of faith and move beyond the current paradigmal thinking. (I like to call it Cartesian world view).

The second issue, directly related to our current course, is transformative learning.

I believe the two things can be looked at together. I spent hours on the web researching these issues, and eventually contacted several people working on transformation and Integral Theory. This is the great thing about the internet! As a result, I have now some initial information that gives more substance to my claim that there is more than just a dichotomous approach to today’s problems.

Here is a summary of some resources that I thought I’d share with you.

INTEGRAL THEORY

Ken Wilber defines integral as:

“to integrate, to bring together, to join, to link, to embrace. Not in the sense of uniformity, and not in the sense of ironing out all of the wonderful differences, colors, zigs and zags of a rainbow-hued humanity, but in the sense of unity-in-diversity, shared commonalities along with our wonderful differences.” (A Theory of Everything)

“The word integral means comprehensive, inclusive, non-marginalizing, embracing. Integral approaches to any field attempt to be exactly that: to include as many perspectives, styles, and methodologies as possible within a coherent view of the topic. In a certain sense, integral approaches are “meta-paradigms,” or ways to draw together an already existing number of separate paradigms into an interrelated network of approaches that are mutually enriching.”

I believe that learning and dialogue may be key tools in such paradigm shift. For now, we are still dealing with a world premised on the industrialization era where people in general are reluctant to move into uncharted land, and instead prefer to linger on whatever we have, in spite of its obvious failures.

As Richard Evanoff writes in an interesting paper on Intercultural Dialogue and Education,” “From the point of view of intercultural education the alternative model of development advocates democratizing the decision-making process in a way that fully takes the interests and concerns of non-elites into consideration.”

Another scholar that addresses transformation in education is Mezirow, whom we encounter in our FLIP course.

———————-

These are examples of wholistic, non-essentialist approaches. I hope it’s clear that I am sharing this information not in an attempt to proselytize, but just to provide some examples of a different thinking paradigm.

Foley presents a similar approach to adult education as we saw in Walters (2006). Walters distinguished between Adult Education and adult Learning, with the former being the hardware of education, and the latter being the software for a more personal, community-related process of knowledge building. Similarly to Walters’ “adult learning”, Foley recognizes how “some of the most powerful learning occurs as people struggle against oppression, as they struggle to make sense of what is happening to them and to work out ways of doing something about it.” (p. 1) “This conception stands against the received body of adult education theory in the English – speaking world, which focuses on individual learners, educational technique and course provision,” (p.1) basically the premises of Walters’ “adult education”.

In his view of education, Foley recognizes the core role of social and cultural processes. “Adult education is not just a technical process, nor is it value-free. Like any human endeavour, adult education is a complex social and value-creating activity, one, which is shaped by, and which shapes, social structure and culture, and which inevitably involves ethical judgements and choices.” (p.2)

Based on the preceding consideration, Foley suggests a theoretical framework (see below for more comments) that results from the interplay of learning processes, local politics and social forces.

Foley gives preference to informal, incidental learning as a means to uncover and redress oppression through a process of conscientization that reminds me of Freire’s thinking. He writes that, “For people to become actively involved in social movements something had to happen to their consciousness – they had to learn that social action was necessary and possible.” (p.4) The goal of such process of awareness building is the unlearning of dominant ideologies. I would say that this is the primary goal in Foley’s model of learning for social action. It is well summarized in the following quotes:

“The unlearning of dominant, oppressive ideologies and discourses and the learning of oppositional, liberatory ones are central to processes of emancipatory learning.” (p.3)

“These relationships of domination are learned, and can be unlearned.” (p.3)

What in your view are the key theoretical (ideological?) perspectives that inform Foley’s conception of the relationship between ‘struggle’ and ‘learning’?

Foley’s ideas are deeply rooted in an anti-capitalist discourse, as he himself writes in his article:

“I argue that the received notion of economic ‘restructuring’ constitutes a myth that masks the actual processes of capitalist reorganization. The current phase of reorganization of the economy, workplaces and education has been misrepresented by policy-makers and many intellectuals, who are promoting simplistic technical solutions to complex social problems. To understand this restructuring and the role of education and learning in it, it is essential to understand capitalism.” (p. 3)

He later restates that “a critique of capitalism must lie at the heart of emancipatory adult theory and practice.” (p.4)

Based on these premises, Foley’s theoretical framework recognizes “the widespread and powerful informal and incidental education and learning that occur around social and political struggle.” (p. 4) He suggest a set of variables that are – in his opinion – concurring in the development of learning and education practices and policies that would eventually dismantle the capitalist exploitative system.

Even if I can agree with him on his list of grievances on the structural and ideological building blocks of capitalism, I disagree with his (and others’) dichotomous view of socio-historical-cultural-economic scenarios. I believe his antagonistic view of history – as it transpires from his article (pp. 4-5) – is not accurate. History was not a sequence of black and white situations. It was full of shades. In my view, Foley re-proposes a trite essentialist interpretation of human history and relevant processes of affirmation. Again, as I wrote with regard to Youngman, (Link to forum ) I prefer a different, more refreshing, systems-based, experimental approach that would leave “old” diatribes behind, not because they cannot be supported by relevant discourses, but simply because it’s time “to move on.”

At the end of his article, Foley makes a concession, in an attempt at opening up his Marxist approach to more serendipitous possibilities: “I also still believe that socialism and the working-class movements are central to this project. But I have come to understand the complexities and problematic nature of popular struggles and movements must be recognized, and that only democratic means can generate emancipatory ends.” (p. 7) His statement does not sound very convincing. Just a few paragraphs later he re-states his position with very strong words: “Marxist political economy, history and cultural analysis are fundamental to my thinking. The Marxism that attracts me is reflexive and empirical. Dogmatism and excessive abstraction in Marxism or in any other problematic repel me.” (p.7)

Think about how the authors see the relationship amongst the learning, political, and organisational aspects of the education and training practices they are discussing.

Both articles reflect a participatory idea of education based on the acquisition of a level of conscientization that will eventually liberate the oppressed and lead us into a brighter future.

In both articles, Civil Society is the locus of the necessary learning experience linked to such societal transformation. While Walters and Manicom emphasizes the feminist aspect of the liberation struggle through education, Foley returns to existing class-based discourses of political emancipation. When reading these articles, I am reminded of the danger inherent in what Usher and Edwards (1005) defined as Confessional education: “practices such as journaling, life planning, self-evaluation, portfolios, and counseling that are commonly associated with experiential learning.” They believe that people become “objects of scrutiny” as they follow their educators’ advice on issues of identity definition. (Fenwick, 2001, pp. 41-42) Extensively, when we engage in learning activities to address social and economic imbalances, we should be mindful of the danger of indoctrination, even when that is not intentional. For example, when Foley (p.4) brings up Zimbabwe’s national struggle for “democracy and socialism,” he clearly fails to mention what came out of that struggle.

Foley, (1999) states that all analysis is partial and partisan. Phenomenologically, this can be seen as huge advantage if the action outcome is to create something whole, not oppose something partial. The more diversity, the deeper and broader the learning. There doesn’t have to be a winner and a loser. Foley argued that the most significant learning comes from the struggle to overcome oppression. Extrapolating from what Walters and Manicom are saying though, if you stick very closely to female experience, then really the most significant learning comes from acts of accommodating conflict and diversity within a larger creation. The only way to get beyond the strait jacket of context (say in a fundamentalist, gender-biased culture), is to create something even bigger, but still, in some way, inclusive. Women have been given the role of creating nurturing environments for centuries. We are good at this.

I think the whole Freirian concept of transformative learning has been hijacked by a masculine bias towards seeing conflict as a polarity, as a problem to be solved. (Despite the language he expressed his ideas through, I don’t think he actually lived his own teachings that way.) By contrast, if I think about it, women, (in the way we often ventilate about our problems without necessarily seeking immediate solutions, for example), actually seem to find a kind of energy through conflict that we incorporate into our creativity.

I apologize for how garbled this must sound….

Hi you all,

From what I have seen, I believe it’s ok to comment across groups, so please allow me to say that I found Maries’s comments very relevant to our discussion. They definitely do not sound garbled in any way, as they are trying to break through the dichotomous views that I and several others have criticized.

Marie argues in favor of the creation of “something new.” That is what transformation is all about. Bear with me if I sound repetitive, but sometimes out thoughts – scattered as they are across several forums – need to be re-stated. I feel that there is confusion in the way the concept of “transformation” is understood and presented. It is certainly a contested term. Often it’s used in lieu of “change” and “alternative”. I believe transformation goes beyond that. Obama’s campaign slogan was “we want change.” And in fact, he is now trying to change a few things, but he is not going to transform the U.S.. I believe that for transformation to happen we would need an alchemic process that would allow for the elaboration of a different thinking paradigm. Like Marie wrote, “there doesn’t have to be a winner and a loser.” In another forum (link) I have mentioned the TRC, the truth and reconciliation commission as an example of democratic, transformative learning experience. It involved the participation of several layers of civil society, with the support of state agencies, and its outcome – so I believe – was liberatory both at the personal and at the collective levels.

It feels like we are at a crucial phase in modern history. Pure capitalsim and free market economics have taken a hefty blow over the past 12 months. I understand that this won’t have the slightest influence on the majority of neo-liberal and conservative thinkers, but it has given more credibility and weight to the voices of those who are fighting for an alternative. I also believe that awareness regarding environmental issues is reaching a point of critical mass as well. We shall see whether it’s all “too little, too late´´, but at least global consciousness is starting to reach serious levels.

Hi Geoffrey,

Your post was what you said..empowering, and I thank you for writing such stirring words that show how the way we perceive things can also make a difference. When reading Youngman, my reaction was different from yours, and not because I like to wrap myself in pessimism and gloomy thoughts. I believe it’s important that we discuss a lot of perspectives, Youngman’s included. As I mentioned in several posts, my take is that his is just one kind of analysis, one that reiterates existing discourses based on the juxtaposition of capitalism vs. Marxism, Somehow, and this is a very personal response of mine, his thread of thoughts does not touch me as deeply as it does touch others. In a sense, without detracting from the value of his analysis and the contribution that that has made to our understanding of issues of oppression, to me it sounds a bit like “politics as usual.” I hope my remarks are not upsetting anyone. I would also like to say, as it was written in several of our forums before, that whatever approach we are looking at, we need to frame it both contextually and temporally. That applies to Freire as much as it applies to the other writers we are studying.

In this article Larsson presents the case of the Study Circles as “a mass-phenomenon in contemporary Sweden.” (p. 1) Study Circles refer to both the content and the educational framework within which learning occurs.

Since the foundation of the first study circles association in 1912, Study Circles in Sweden were understood as a means to the advancement of education from the bottom up. Unlike traditional education, they were based on the following “grammar” derived from democratic principles of egalitarian participation:

“1) There are no examinations or merits to be gained; 2) Participation is voluntary; 3) One operates with the expectation of a limited number of persons in a circle, normally somewhere between 5 – 19 persons; 4) Time is often treated in a different way from ordinary schools – often study circles will meet for 3 hours once a week with a break in the middle. A study circle will often consist of 10 to fifteen of such meanings; 5) A circle will have a leader, who does not have to be an expert – it can be one of the participants. On the other hand, there are often experts acting as leaders.” (p. 2)

Study Circles have focussed on learning activities that would strengthen people’s active participation in democratic society by offering a plethora of topics that would represent diverse world views.

Historically, Study Circles underwent a transmutation.

Originally, their activities were entwined with the civil society movements that were the driving force behind the popular participation in the circles. In fact, “participation in study circles during the first half of the century was often part of a relatively strong, sometimes class based, relation to a specific movement.” (p. 3) From that perspective, study circles were “in sharp opposition to state and market.” (p.3)

In the course of the twentieth century, however, with the weakening of popular movements and the corresponding emerging of institutions of representative democracy within the state, Study Circles lost their relevance as loci of political activism.

Compared with the limiting effect that states exercise elsewhere on education, the role of the state in the Swedish Study Circles is ambivalent. In Sweden the state provides financial support to the study circles without imposing limits to their mission.

In discussing Study Circles, Larsson examines their relevance for and impact on today’s adult learning education in Sweden. He recognizes the loss of importance experienced by civil society movements over the last century, partly due to the emergence of a globalized society and what that entails. It seems that “the power and the possibilities of the civil society have been reduced, since there is less that is decided upon through democratic decision-making in the society as a whole.” (p.15)

This has led to a shift of focus in the activities of Study Circles. They went from being the educational arm of class-based social movements to being more and more involved with the pursuit of learning at the personal level. The effect on civil society and the state institutions is not to be found anymore in the action taken by the related popular movements, but in the small-scale influence that individuals may exert in their private political spheres.

The core pillar in the Swedish Study Circles still clearly rests on Oscar Olsson’s original view of “education for and through the people.” (p.12) He is considered the father of the study circles. In spite of their changing role, Study Circles are therefore still based on the promotion of equality, knowledge, active participation, democracy and diversity. These issues are by all means not clear cut and remain highly contested in the ways they may be achieved and by whom.

COMMENTS

Today’s function of Study Circles

Larsson recognizes how the function of Study Circles in relation to the State and Civil Society class-based movements has changed since their inception. In particular, the promotion of action does not appear to be any longer the driving force behind Study Circles. Recognizing this loss of political traction reminds me of our discussions on Youngman and Freire with regard to the actuality of their views. I believe many of us have recognized the change in today’s context and conditions. Study Circles appear to have been highly adaptive to such changes.

Consequently, they reflect the shift from a context dominated by popular movements to one that values participation as “individual and private rather than something that is supporting the influence and power of a civil society versus other societal powers.” (p.13) Maybe one could argue that Study Circles were never meant to be the tools for political actions. In fact, even in the past, political action was the domain of social movements. What has changed is the intensity of how the learning activities developed in Study Circles would transfer to political action.

Diversity

With regard to diversity, Larsson emphasizes how Study Circles have provided an arena for the production of new identities, concluding that “the study circle tradition provides a system that is very much adapted to support diversity. We can also note that this is not only a potential but it is in fact used in practice as a place to produce and reproduce diverse identities.” (p.11) I find this specific point very important to our course and the relevant discussion on glocal education. I believe the relational nature of Study Circles provides a fertile ground for dialogue that would consider diverse narratives and discourses. That could be the prelude to the emergence of a transformative and then enactivist perspective and possibly a new holistic cultural paradigm based on Third-Culture building practices.

Global citizenship, European model.

I find Larsson’s article refreshing in its affirmation of the concept of “pluralistic citizenship.” (cited from Johnson, 1999) It reflects current approaches to people’s participation that transcend both Freire’s and Youngman’s class-based thinking. Of course, I recognize that his views are rooted in the Scandinavian tradition, quite different from the contexts discussed by the other authors. Nevertheless, his vocabulary is suitable for a comprehensive discussion of transformative education that relates to the changed landscape of the new millennium. I am saying this not because Freire’s observation on inequality and oppressions do not have merit nowadays, but because I believe we have now gained deeper, systemic insights into the relevant issues.

In Larsson’s words, the alternative to a traditional, juxtaposed idea of democracy

“will be a view, where there is no universal truth or ‘correct’ decision, but rather that democracy is about peaceful solutions of conflicting interests and world-views, in other words, negotiations and compromises between a multitude of groups in the population who have elected representatives. Possibilities to develop a diversity of opinions and form organisations based on this diversity become a prerequisite for such democracy” that would” embrace diversity and cultural pluralism.” (p. 9)

This will also entail politics of mutual recognition.

As an example of this kind of societal transformation, I would like to bring up the case of a EUROPA as outlined at http://www.euroalter.com/about-logo/ and http://www.euroalter.com/about/ . The language used in these web pages is consistent with Larsson’s findings and – in my view – also with the Cape Learning Region as conceptualized by Walters.

Larsson accept the definition of civil society given by Cohen and Arato. They believe that “social movements constitute the dynamic element in processes that might realize the positive potentials of modern civil societies.” Check this for more on Cohen and Arato: http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/jbmurray/research/jbm_ayacucho.pdf

DISCUSSION

>>>>>

MARIE WROTE:

He does not mention the potential of the Internet as an opposite force to this, similar in a sense to study circles, but on a global scale. I would argue that wikis, blogs, social networks, the diversity of web pages (self-promotional, knowledge-based, and otherwise) made available through the Internet offer similar eclectic, self-initiated, and non-hierarchical options to informal adult learning. Because these go well beyond geographical state borders, are divorced from physical or locally situated constraints, they open up diverse knowledge building, and a kind of equality that restricts membership based on technological access alone. It remains to be seen whether this medium will reinforce collective participation in self governance or merely further fragmentation of local civil societies.

Hi Marie!

Thank you so much for your eloquent post. I found it meaningful, easy to read and well-written.

Here are some comments on the issue of changing educational venues. On reading Larsson, I had this picture of a Swedish landscape scattered with small, self-contained communities, where people gather in cosy buildings with a very warm atmosphere to work on their social networking and personal adult education advancement. It is a comforting image, one that may reveal an aspect of Swedish society that may be hard to find in places outside Scandinavia. It is an image that may look quintessentially Swedish, and by extent is more familiar and palatable to Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, than to people in South Africa. I may be wrong, but this image may still dominate the Swedes’ approach to their adult education extension programs such as the Study Circles, because it is “culturally appropriate”, situated in the Nordic tradition. This may be a reason why immigrants are underrepresented in such context. As you point out, IT education opportunities are nowadays available. I wonder if they would satisfy the need for personal interaction sought after by the aging Swedish population. That would be the topic for another research project.

What is important here in terms of glocal education – I think – is to imagine. Let’s imagine how the learning spirit typical of study circles would work elsewhere. For example, would it be relevant to the specific context of South Africa? And let’s imagine how learning approaches from other places would benefit the Swedish adult education environment. How would that affect society? Transformation in the global age is about new ways in which we can imagine a different world.

Oscar

>>>>>>>

Kathy wrote:

dear oscar and Marie

just to add to your images of fireplaces and cosy rooms – the same organisation who is using Reflect in SA has been piloting a few study circles. They are working in the rural areas of the eastern cape in one of the poverty nodes of South Africa. so the study circles will be happening in in mud huts around a fireplace. People believe that in these areas, the original home of Nelson Mandela, Ubuntu still exists.

I guess the methodology of Reflect and a study circle would complement each other as both allow people a space to explore and develop; to work without an ‘expert’ towards transforming ones own community.

kathy

Dear Kathy and Marie,

The image of people gathering in mud huts to learn is very empowering. My stereotyped image of Sweden was actually more representative of the past. I am aware that things have changed a bit (-: . My point was that, for the Swedes, that image still holds power over the way democracy may be understood as belonging to the people. It’d be interesting to hear about this point from some of our cohorters in Scandinavia.

Kathy wrote: “to work without an ‘expert’ towards transforming ones own community.”

That reminds me of how David Bohm envisioned dialogue. On this, I’d like to share the following excerpt from Klenemas (2008), which I believe reinforces the philosophical approach of the Study Circles.

(emphasis added) “David Bohm sees equality of/among the participants as an important feature of dialogue. He says that this equality can be reached through a fair hearing of all parties involved. This demands of course also a certain degree of openness among the dialogue partners and that everyone has the chance to participate.

Bohm claims that hierarchical power structures would be counterproductive to the interaction. In his eyes, a discussion – in contrast to a dialogue – aims at a win-lose situation, where the parties “play” against (i.e. not with) each other. In a dialogue, on the other hand, people aim to reach a win-win situation.

To say it differently, dialogue is not about convincing or persuading the other. (This would mean that I know everything about my opinion, but nothing or little about the others’.) It is through listening carefully to each other without judging the others’ opinions that everyone can create the “same” stock of knowledge. Bohm is not saying that you should suppress your opinions and feelings. On the contrary, talking openly about facts and feelings is also important to reach what he calls “coherence of thought”. He stresses that if there is a coherence of meaning (or thought) the process and outcome will be much stronger and more effective. Let me sum up these three features of dialogue with David Bohm’s words:

‘How can you share if you are sure you have truth and the other fellow is sure he has truth, and the truths don’t agree? How can you share? Therefore, you have to watch out for the notion of truth. Dialogue may not be concerned with truth – it may arrive at truth, but it is concerned with meaning. If the meaning is incoherent you will never arrive attruth.’ (Bohm 1996: 15f)”

This approach brings Freire’s ideas on conscientization into focus by making it the individual’s responsibility to find coherence among a diversity of thoughts and meanings. For me, as I pointed out in another post (Link to forum ), this would be a supporting pillar for a new thinking paradigm.

Thank you Annika for your comments as an insider. They play well into the etic vs. emic debate. (The “emic and etic” perspective is used in anthropology and cross-cultural counseling.)

Interestingly, you confirm the lower participation of immigrants in the Swedish Study Circles, which in turn may highlight the Nordic nature of such particular approach to adult education and the difficulty in transcending its original cultural imprint. This is a good example how complex issues of glocal education are, highlighting the difficulty of applying ideas across cultural differences. With regard to Study Circles, hat many view as a well-organized approach may feel and look to others – e.g. immigrants, broadly generalizing – as constrictive and at odds with their own ideas of learning. At the beginning, in Sweden it was assumed that Study Circles would work well to address local adult education needs. It was a system that was culturally appropriate and responding to Swedish minds. Extending the system to “outsiders” may be tricky, as it may reveal that not everyone agrees on the original assumption.

On this particular point, I would like to write some considerations. Larsson says that, “Even though there was a strong tendency to celebrate scientific knowledge at the time, study circles gave in fact space for diverse world-views. In that sense pluralism was in fact supported in worldviews by the organisational structure of independent study associations with different ideological connections.” (p. 2) He continues with several examples of what this diversity of world views is about. His thinking betrays a basic essentialist view of diversity, one that is necessarily limited – at least at the beginning – to diversity as perceived within Swedish society, and therefore mostly relevant to aspects of Swedish civil society. Even when he mentions issues of globalization, he considers them from a Nordic perspective.

It would be interesting to know if non-autochthonous variations of diversity now exist along Larsson’s examples of diversity as cited in his paper, and how these levels interact.

Although our thoughts across the many forums may at times sound redundant (mine included). I would like to add some “old” ideas that i had previously posted on Our Samarbeta discussion on Youngman , which already dealt with issues of transformation. I am a bit hesitant to re-introduce these thoughts but I am doing that as I believe it is relevant to this particular forum, also considering that the audience has changed.

Here is a summary of what I believe TRANSFORMATION in Adult Education may be.

I suggest two levels of transformation: 1) personal/local, and 2) local/global. Not everyone and not every context may necessarily become part of either transformation process.

I believe that in this perspective the “educator helps link disparate experiences into a coherent whole.” (Dewey cited in Fenwick, p.3) Learners are made aware of the level of responsibility required for their educational path. They engage in problem-solving activities to become successful in their chosen fields. The teacher acts as a guide and promoter of critical change geared at reforming and redressing system imbalances through a process of understanding civil responsibility and issues of active citizenship.

2) AT THE LOCAL/GLOBAL LEVEL

This level is more relevant for our discussion. It incorporates the personal growth of the previous step and takes it to a higher level.

At this stage an educator may engage in the following practices:

Promoting the discussion of complex and “delicate” intercultural issues

Promoting awareness and recognition of issues of – among others – governmentability, self-subjugation, oppression, and discrimination.

I believe that this level, which has a strong political accent, may be approached in different ways, or even a combination of ways. Contextualizing and framing conditions of oppression and inequality is a prerequisite to adopting the most effective approach to global transformation. The role of the state, civil society, stakeholders, and other actors is a defining factor at this complex level of transformation. I have the feeling that most of the actions premised on transformation combine one or more of the following approaches.

Constructivist radical orientation

Here the teacher acts as a promoter of conscience and an external force that can empower students and facilitate social transformation. Freire’s pedagogy of conscientization seems to move in this direction, beyond the stiffness and the oppressing dictates of banking education. However, his ideas – as many of us have realized – are based on a set of dichotomous axioms that may not agree with changed conditions and discourses on transformative education of our time.

I also believe it’s important, for example in the case of South Africa, to consider the intercultural dimension. I believe that a radical approach would be very suitable to examine, discuss, and challenge cultural discourses, assumptions, issues of cultural representations and otherization, and personal narratives. Ultimately, a radical orientation could be more effective at uncovering and possibly overcoming issues of oppression, cultural relativism and essentialism, and eventually at addressing the imbalances that are still part of our social and educational models.

However, this approach may entail possibilities for culture clashes and it may be of difficult application within the dominant world view, given the level of psychological and cultural embeddedness of current educational paradigms and relevant social frameworks and discourses. That’s when dialogue comes in, as a means and context for critical consciousness (awareness would be another word that comes to mind) building.

Constructivist transformational orientation

Here the teacher acts as a promoter of transformation processes. According to Merizow (1991), this approach leads “to a dramatic shift or transformation in the learner’s way of viewing the world.” by “bringing of one’s assumptions, premises, criteria, and schemata into consciousness and vigorously critiquing them.” (Fenwick, 2001, p. 13)

This orientation is suitable to challenge and discuss cultural assumptions through cognitive reflection, as suggested by Freire. However, one has to recognize that not everyone is interested in shifting perspective, or capable of reflecting cognitively, in which cases this approach may feel to some like a piloted operation.

From a practical point of view, I believe intercultural dialogic communication as envisioned by intercultural thinkers such as David Bohm, Martin Buber, Fred Casmir, Muneo Yoshikawa and many others belongs within this perspective. It aims at the development of a high level of dialogue competence that can benefit intercultural understanding. (Matoba, 2002, p. 143)

Enactivist orientation

This perspective promotes a new paradigm of learning derived from whole systems thinking. It transcends the confinements of the established world view and its embedded traditional education practices. The educator is viewed as a communicator, story-maker, and interpreter. (Fenwick, 2001, p. 49)

This entails an investigative, open-ended approach to learning that is not separate from teaching. The language used in this perspective is conducive to understanding relations between systems, including the interplay between actors and issues in the education universe. This presides over the co-emergence of an interrelated pattern, in which “each participant’s understandings are entwined with those of other participants, and individual knowledge co-emerges with collective knowledge.” (Fenwick, 2001, p. 49)

Since this approach is linked to the broader, global perspective of whole systems thinking, it allows one to relate her/his professional practice to the emergence of a new thinking paradigm, which I consider central to the role of an educator.

Enactivist educators “can provide feedback loops to a system as it experiments with different patterns leading out from disequilibrium.” (Fenwick, 2001, p.50) This resonates with views of a paradigmal change such as those presented by Dr. Ervin Laszlo, founder of The Club of Budapest, in his work on macroshifts. (Laszlo, 2001)

This perspective, however, may be of difficult application under today’s established educational circumstances, as it requires reframing current paradigms, discourses, and world views. But this is exactly the challenge of transformative education, which is experimental, forward and critical thinking. Freire certainly caught the essence of the imbalances that affect our societies (then, and today). The question for us, I believe, is to incorporate his ideas into the changing context of the third millennium.

I have read Oscar’s additonal posting. Thanks so much. I have asked this question previously, and am asking it again. What do Mezirow and Youngman propose to change, through transformative adult education (Youngman) and transformative learning (Mezirow)? is it the same?

Zelda

Hi Zelda,

Sorry for not answering those questions earlier. Here are my thoughts in that regard.

Youngman: his idea of transformative adult education stems from a political analysis of issues of oppression, ultimately from a perspective derived from political economy. He views transformation through adult education as a collective process through which people (the “masses” as Freire would have said) are able to conquer issues of social inequality, disenfranchment, marginalization, discrimination, etc. To a lesser degree than Freire’s theory of conscientization, Youngmans displays a dichotomous perspective that is still heavily influenced by the juxtaposition of capitalist and Marxist class views of a political economy, even though he has come to include many aspects of social issues that cannot be examined from a traditional class perspective. (Feminism, environmentalism, etc) His thinking is the product of 19th and 20th centuries political economy discourses.

Merirow: The core of his transformative learning is the individual learners’ ability to construe, validate, and reformulate the meaning of their experience. The emphasis is on “perspective transformation” as a means to promote personal growth and, eventually influence the emergence of a new society. Rather than a society based on Youngman’s dichotomous views, Merirow envisions a society that would display the traits of a Third-Culture, where the new is not just a better version of the old, but is instead a transformed thinking paradigm. Merirow’s transformative learning is dialectic, suitable to challenge and discuss cultural assumptions through cognitive reflection (it leads “to a dramatic shift or transformation in the learner’s way of viewing the world” by “bringing of one’s assumptions, premises, criteria, and schemata into consciousness and vigorously critiquing them”); (p. 13)

“Others’ views can act as mirrors for our own views, opening dialectic, helping us “unfreeze” our “meaning perspectives” (Mezirow 1991) and assumptions. This is very different from Youngman’s exclusion of juxtaposed views. In Merirow’s case we confront and challenge the taken-for-granted norms— what’s wrong with how I am seeing what happened and how it happened?—leading to a dramatic shift or transformation in the learner’s way of viewing the world.

To summarize, I believe that Youngman’s views on transformation are driven by political discourses and focus on social issues from a political economy perspective. Merirow instead views transformation as an individual process of growth derived from self-reflection and a dialectical approach with the other that will eventually transcend individual differences and give raise to something new akin to a Third-Culture. In this regard, Merirow’s theory is undoubtedly systems-based.

While oppression remains, so Freire’s ideas remain relevant and more sophisticated, complex or modern concepts serve only to cover up the basics – poverty, inequality, exploitation etc.

Hi Gloria,

Thank you for adding some additional thoughts. Your posts are always interesting.

I’d like to comment on the above, as I am not sure I can agree with you on that hundred per cent. You are absolutely right that the issues remain the same, taking us all back to the overarching role of power in our societies.

During the past century we witnessed a ping pong game between Marxism and Capitalism. They were just two sides of the same coin: they shared the same basic world view. When I consider other options is mainly because such dichotomous game didn’t really change much for marginalized people. It even created additional marginalization and oppression that are more difficult to be detected, as they are so much based on the victims’ “willing” co-operation. (Consumerism, to support the socialist or the capitalist economies, is all about “free” participation.)

I certainly agree that mere philosophical speculations on alternative solutions are not going to feed the starving masses, nor are they going to “solve” anything per se’. I believe, however, that we need to move beyond the Cartesian discourses that have dominated the scene since the age of the Enlightenment. If we don’t do that, we remain stuck.